Biblical arguments against the modern practice of speaking in tongues often center on the belief that contemporary manifestations do not align with the scriptural descriptions of the gift as it occurred in the New Testament. A primary argument is that the biblical gift of tongues involved speaking in actual, intelligible human languages, not unintelligible sounds. Biblical arguments against the modern practice of speaking in tongues often center on the belief that contemporary manifestations do not align with the scriptural descriptions of the gift as it occurred in the New Testament.
Biblical arguments against the modern practice of speaking in tongues often center on the belief that contemporary manifestations do not align with the scriptural descriptions of the gift as it occurred in the New Testament. A primary argument is that the biblical gift of tongues involved speaking in actual, intelligible human languages, not unintelligible sounds. The Greek word glossa is understood to mean either a language or the organ of speech, and replacing “tongues” with “languages” in Scripture clarifies that the gift enabled the apostles to communicate the gospel in foreign languages, as seen on the day of Pentecost when “every man heard them speak in his own language”. This miraculous ability was meant to edify the church and spread the gospel, not to serve as an emotional release or private prayer language.
Modern instances of speaking in tongues are frequently criticized for being unintelligible and lacking linguistic structure, resembling “babble” or “glossolalia” rather than genuine foreign languages. Linguistic analysis has shown that these utterances often reflect the speaker’s native language patterns, suggesting they are not supernatural but psychological or emotional expressions. The Bible explicitly states that if someone speaks in a tongue, it must be interpreted so that the congregation can understand and be edified; otherwise, it is unfruitful and “speaks into the air”. Paul emphasized that speaking in tongues without interpretation is not beneficial to the church, and he prioritized prophecy and teaching over tongues.
Another key argument is that the gift of tongues was not a universal experience for all believers. Paul clearly states, “Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? do all speak with tongues?” The answer is no, indicating that this gift was not given to everyone. Furthermore, there are instances in the New Testament where believers were filled with the Holy Spirit but did not speak in tongues, such as in Acts 4:8, 7:55, and 9:17, which undermines the claim that speaking in tongues is a necessary sign of the Spirit’s presence.
Critics also point out that the modern phenomenon often lacks the fruit of the Spirit, such as love, peace, and self-control, and instead may be accompanied by unseemly conduct or emotional excess, which contradicts the biblical description of the Holy Spirit’s work. The gift was also given as a sign to unbelievers, not as a private prayer language, which further challenges the modern interpretation. Some argue that the gift was temporary, intended for the foundational period of the church, and has ceased, a view known as cessationism. Others maintain that the true gift was a miraculous ability to speak in foreign languages, not the modern practice of ecstatic utterance, which they see as a counterfeit of the biblical phenomenon.
⚠️ 1. Tongues in the New Testament were real human languages, not ecstatic speech
The strongest argument centers on the nature of biblical tongues.
Biblical Evidence
- Acts 2:4–11 — Tongues were understood as known languages (“we hear them speaking in our own tongues”).
- No one in Acts speaks unintelligible syllables; the miracle is linguistic, not ecstatic.
Argument
If biblical tongues were always real languages, then modern “syllables” and ecstatic speech are not the biblical gift, and therefore a false spiritual practice.
Thus, promoting unintelligible tongues as a sign of the Spirit is viewed as dangerous or heretical.
⚠️ 2. Tongues served as a temporary “sign to unbelieving Israel,” not a permanent church practice
Paul identifies the purpose of tongues with prophetic judgment.
Biblical Evidence
- 1 Corinthians 14:21–22 — Paul quotes Isaiah 28:11, where foreign tongues were a sign of judgment on Israel.
- Paul explicitly calls tongues a sign for unbelievers (specifically Israel in context).
Argument
Tongues fulfilled a specific redemptive-historical role connected to Israel’s judgment—culminating in A.D. 70.
Once that judgment fell, the alleged biblical function of tongues ended, making modern tongues the misuse of a sign that no longer exists.
⚠️ 3. Tongues were listed among “foundational” gifts connected to the apostles
Some theologians argue tongues belonged to the era of special revelation that ended with the apostles.
Biblical Evidence
- Ephesians 2:20 — The church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.”
- Hebrews 2:3–4 — Signs and miracles authenticated the apostolic message.
- 1 Corinthians 13:8–10 — “Tongues… will cease.” (Cessationists argue this refers to the close of the apostolic age.)
Argument
Since tongues were part of foundation-laying revelation, continuing them today is adding new revelation and thus considered, by some, functionally heretical (a challenge to the sufficiency of Scripture).
⚠️ 4. Biblical tongues required interpretation and strict regulation—nothing like modern charismatic practice
Paul forbids chaotic or uninterpreted tongues.
Biblical Evidence
- 1 Corinthians 14:27–28 — Only two or three speakers; must be interpreted; otherwise remain silent.
- 1 Corinthians 14:33, 40 — God is not the author of confusion; all things must be done “decently and in order.”
Argument
Since most modern tongues:
- Have no interpreters,
- Are practiced by entire groups simultaneously,
- Are treated as a sign of deeper spirituality,
…this is considered direct disobedience to Scripture, and some conclude it constitutes false worship.
⚠️ 5. Paul warns about counterfeit spiritual phenomena
Paul acknowledges that Christians can mistake emotional or ecstatic experiences for the Spirit.
Biblical Evidence
- 1 Corinthians 12:2 — “You were led astray to mute idols… as you were led.”
(Some argue Paul warns that pagan ecstatic speech could be confused for spiritual gifts.) - 1 John 4:1 — “Test the spirits.”
- Matthew 7:22–23 — People can perform signs and wonders and still be unknown to Christ.
Argument
If modern tongues resemble pagan ecstatic speech more than biblical languages, they may be counterfeit spiritual manifestations, and promoting them risks heresy.
⚠️ Conclusion (from the cessationist/heresy argument)
Christians who argue that modern tongues are heretical claim:
- Biblical tongues = real languages (Acts 2).
- Their purpose was temporary (1 Cor. 14:21–22).
- They belonged to the apostolic foundation (Eph. 2:20).
- Modern practice violates Paul’s rules (1 Cor. 14:27–28).
- Scripture warns of counterfeit spiritual gifts (1 John 4:1).
Therefore, they conclude that modern tongues are not the biblical gift and that promoting them as required or as a sign of the Spirit is theologically dangerous or heretical.
